It is a ploy to keep the Interior from mounting any defense before the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill gets a vote.
The first thing Clinton ever vetoed was the Taylor-Dicks amendment to something else -- oh, yeah it was the budget bill for the year -- anyways, that amendment was tagged onto something that the distinguished genetlemen had assumed the president had to sign... trying to force the concept down the throat of the taxpayer that it was a Good Thing (TM) to let the oil and lumber industry come in and rape what's left of our pristine wildernesses in the west and northwest and that it was an even better idea to have the taxpayer foot the bill for all the infrastructre (roads, bridges, etc.) required to do it. Well, like I said, it became the first thing Clinton ever vetoed (up to that point he had been viewed as strangely cooperative and non-partisan). Well, when the budget crisis ensued and the entire gov't threatened to shut itself down (remember that? how many of us hoped it would?) the first agency to get the axe was the EPA and Congress even went so far as to repeal the Environmental Protection Act for a period of three years and the work in the forests went on as planned.
This is just more of the same, business as usual. Ony this time, they're cutting the Interior Department off at the knees before they have a chance to mount opposition. If you make sure it doesn't meet opposition to begin with, you won't have to resort to more obvious dirty tricks later on. Nobody shut down the Democrats' systems in the Congress for insecurity... they pilfered them for all they were worth. Not really news here. Nothing to see here folks, move along...
Too true. But how many Rand readers do you really expect to find out here anyways? Just because I can identify now three of us and two of us got the point and one didn't or at least didn't agree with it, I'd still have to say that is optomistic even for/. although the sample is low. In a general population sample, I'd expect to go through upwards of 20 Rand readers before I found one who both understood it and agreed with it... not quite on par with Joyce for accessibility, but definitely approaching it.
Too bad you're already modded +5, or I'd give you more. Oops, now I can't... I've replied to the thread. Excellent perspective though. Not one of those three seem interested in what they can do to make things better and each points fingers at both of the others. It is possible that some would argue the infrastructure providers (ISPs, etc.) should be in your list and play more of a role, but I disagree... the world outside your firewalls should always be regarded as completely void of safety and there should be no reliance on anyone further down the wire to keep you secure. Further, no one upstream of you should be filtering what you get/send or what of you others can see. That's your job. If it's too much for an individual/corporation to handle, they either need to hire a full-time who can handle it, or else outsource some kind of limited, managed network service. If they can't see clear to do one of those, they don't really need to be connected to the network too bad, now, do they?
I can't wait till I'm tring to solve a routing problem and all my Google Groups searches return posts from alt.microsoft.public.ras-routing or alt.microsoft.public.isaserver.
You're not far off base there, but even with the small subset of CSS2+ that is supported, you can do much more with less code than the diverging DHTML methodologies so rampant before XHTML started getting some uptake. The positive thing is that you can build some very, very sharp looking stuff for the truly compliant browsers and still have it look OK in IE. Before that was possible, the tendency of a large number of designers was to code for buggy-as-hell but market dominating IE and let compliant browsers degrade, and that ends up looking like shit in the better browsers. At least this way, designers can shoot for the standard and let IE take the rap for being sub-par.
But yeah, I'm with you... wouldn't it be great if the overwhelmingly predominant browser out there conformed to the standards that much less funded efforts have little problem adhereing to pretty well? I can't believe there is a technological barrier to IE conforming. It has to be purely out of spite.
But that's just it. If you want accesible documents that can flex with whatever presentation layout the reader needs, XML/CSS is invaluable. And if you don't care about those things and are only interested in putting your verbage "out there", it's analogous to talking just to hear the sound of your own voice. Or would you prefer to (a) code separate pages for visually-imapired, etc. or (b) ignore them?
Your swipe was at XML integration into document formats as a whole and web documents in particular (or at least it seemed that way to me) as relates to presentation, or were we talking about something else?
[Word97] doesn't do the XML bullshit that the Office 2000 Word spews out.
Just FYI, that bullshit is their attempt at getting closer to the coming standard (actually it's already here for those who care to limp out of the last millenium). Not to over-congratulate them, they have sacrificed alot of the clean logic by extending Word formatting into their schema, but XHTML is where it's at, and if you don't dig that, either don't develop web pages in any framework or else make plain text your web server's only mime-type.
XHTML realizes to the fullest extent yet the power of CSS, and is slowly forcing a new level of standards compliance on what was before (and still is to a great degree) a very fractured browser base.
Then again, I'm not surprised that someone who prefers Office97 to Office 2000, XP or 2003 (or oOo for that matter) has no use for XML structure in daily tasks.
If XML is so worthless in presentation documents, why is just about every layout app (not just BS formatting toys like Word) including Illustrator, ImageReady, Acrobat, Freehand, Fireworks, Flash etc. (Quark is notably lagging, as usual) moving to XML for the internal structure that organizes the document content? Is it just a bandwagon that everybody is on because their collective arch-rival MS hyped it and "bet the farm" (ummm... yeah... that'd be great) on it? IDFTS!
Then you don't know how to configure windows. Not only do I browse with IE, my wife and son (9) do so on my workstation as well. My son definitely visits a place or two where adware is pushed and I never have an adware problem. I run AdAware and SpyBot and HijackThis occasionally to verify that things are clean. Every now and then they might turn up something minor (tracking cookies, etc.), but it's pretty rare.
Note... I'm not bashing Moz, Opera etc. As far as I can tell, they're fine browsers. I especially like Moz because CSS2/XHTML behaves the way you expect it to in Moz, which is something I surely can't say for IE.
But the point is, you *can* configure IE even without using third-party monitors and blockers in such a way that this crap doesn't get on your PC. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done..
Also, don't think you're immune just because you don't browse with IE. More adware gets installed by piggybacking on cheap shareware/freeware than just about any other way. So just because you don't use IE doesn't mean you're clean. Riddle me this... If you've never run Adaware/SpyBot/HJT, how do you *know* you don't need some cleanup?. If you are clean, that's fantastic, but reasoning that you don't need it without checking it out is kinda PHB-like.
[Charter's Customers would] all drop cable connections and go back to dial up and the Internet would be screwed.
Are You high? Charter's customers going to dialup would hardly be a bad thing. Maybe we'd finally see the end of "default.ida..../n/n/n/n" ad infinitum in our logs.
Right, they made a smart purchase of a company destined to be allowed by the gov't to run a monopoly for years.
<sarcasm>Their ties up the ladder did nothing to perpetuate this.</sarcasm>
For those years they pump/dump all they can. Then when they've gotten all they need, they work out a sweetheart sale to the largest SSL cert provider that gives *them* the largest stake in *that* comapny, now the parent of the registrar! So my original assertion stands that they have heavy influence in name resolution, SSL and identity verification and now the voting system. And the membership of the ex-black-ops is pretty well known. Just google SAIC and CIA. But, you probably already know this. You, for one, welcome our new goon overlords.
Funny how your deductive illogic works -- you can't do any digging, ergo I must be an idiot. Troll.
I'll admit I was overly broad with the word "owns". SAIC no longer owns NetSol outright [they did for five years] and they are only the largest shareholder in VeriSign. The article I mentioned before (I alluded but it eluded) was in Red Herring. From the article (June 2000 issue):
The company also has a knack for placing good bets when it comes to the Internet. In March SAIC received a windfall when VeriSign (Herring 100) announced a $17 billion all-stock purchase of the domain-name registration company Network Solutions , which SAIC bought for under $5 million in 1995. It will make SAIC VeriSign's largest shareholder, with a 9 percent stake -- worth almost $4 billion at the time of the announcement. That will leave lots of cash on hand for future acquisitions.
You have to know with whom you're dealing here. NetSol/VeriSign are now owned by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and have been for a few years now. Acronym sound tongue-in-cheek? It should. It's a bunch of ex-Black-ops guys who came out of long years of service with connections very, very high up the ladder and having been privvy to a lot of research info that usually only the likes of DARPA has seen. They have got to be, hands-down the most classified contractor ever. A few years back, just after FTC allowed the NetSol/VeriSign merger (hmm...), SAIC gobbled up both. About the same time, Carnivore/Eschelon was all the hype.
A whole lot of the combat techno you're seeing is courtesy of SAIC, but their forte is amalgamating disparate data sets and mining them for common threads (and some of the tech they use to do it is quite good, actually). Poindexter worships the ground they walk on and their claim is that several of the high-profile captures since the WTC bombing has been a result of their mining tech. I believe I even saw an article on C|Net about it but it escapes my search now (maybe if SAIC owned that media outlet as well I'd find it easier).
So yeah, I'm just super excited to have these guys with proven goon records and cloak-and-dagger managing both my DNS registration and my SSL communications, as well as making sure my vote got counted correctly. Stellar. Bye-bye freedom, hullo Big Bro...
These "internet-accessible machines owned by the bank... hosted in offsite colo facilities that have no direct connection to [y]our network" -- do they have sensitive/valuable data on them thet they publish to the world? If so, all you're saying is your megabucks employer trusts the colo's sysadmin more than he does you when it comes to securing his sensitive data.
Colo's have DMZs and internal nets too, y'know. I have heard the argument far too many times: "I know how to secure it... we'll host it totally offsite and pay someone else to handle it!" While that may in fact mitigate the threat to your internal servers, very little is available to you regarding access to the servers in question.
I personally like having all my servers located where I can physically touch them (and disconnect their cables physically if need be). Also, my IDSes and monitors get more of a sense of the rise and fall in the "noise floor" when they're all at home. Hearing this chatter is especially useful when the bottom's about to fall out on the next mega-worm, or even sooner when the real threats are probing for the exploits they have now and you don't get a patch for till two weeks hence.
Right on, Bro. If you're going to point out the real downside to monoculture, do that instead of bashing such an easy target as MS installations. Grand-parent had a good point that folks who know what they're doing can stem the evil tide a bit with good implementation & policy. The only caveat to that is alot of them get to the level of knowing what's what by getting burned enough times;!{
The "big advances" SCO is advertising for future releases all hinge on at least one GPL component. If they are declaring the GPL invalid, then they are using that component without permission.
Well, Joey, we agree on one thing... we both know one admin who will know better next time (we hope) or one position that has a new chance to be filled by someone worthy of pay grade above that of fry-cook. These companies kill me... hiring not only unschooled slobs but lazy ones as well to oversee their most critical infrastructure. It's amazing. It's one thing to run critical services on Windows; it's another to have an unattentive dolt manage them.
The bad part about it is that these guys bring down the pay grade for more skilled admins both in the Windows and *NIX world.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a ploy to keep the Interior from mounting any defense before the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill gets a vote.
The first thing Clinton ever vetoed was the Taylor-Dicks amendment to something else -- oh, yeah it was the budget bill for the year -- anyways, that amendment was tagged onto something that the distinguished genetlemen had assumed the president had to sign... trying to force the concept down the throat of the taxpayer that it was a Good Thing (TM) to let the oil and lumber industry come in and rape what's left of our pristine wildernesses in the west and northwest and that it was an even better idea to have the taxpayer foot the bill for all the infrastructre (roads, bridges, etc.) required to do it. Well, like I said, it became the first thing Clinton ever vetoed (up to that point he had been viewed as strangely cooperative and non-partisan). Well, when the budget crisis ensued and the entire gov't threatened to shut itself down (remember that? how many of us hoped it would?) the first agency to get the axe was the EPA and Congress even went so far as to repeal the Environmental Protection Act for a period of three years and the work in the forests went on as planned.
This is just more of the same, business as usual. Ony this time, they're cutting the Interior Department off at the knees before they have a chance to mount opposition. If you make sure it doesn't meet opposition to begin with, you won't have to resort to more obvious dirty tricks later on. Nobody shut down the Democrats' systems in the Congress for insecurity... they pilfered them for all they were worth. Not really news here. Nothing to see here folks, move along...
Where are my mod points when I need them? You clarify points for both sides and stand on neither, as each harbor their own fallacy. Magnificent.
Typical GNU zealot, reinventing the wheel. Alzheimer's disease has been feature-complete for decades -- why do it again?
Do I know you?
Too true. But how many Rand readers do you really expect to find out here anyways? Just because I can identify now three of us and two of us got the point and one didn't or at least didn't agree with it, I'd still have to say that is optomistic even for /. although the sample is low. In a general population sample, I'd expect to go through upwards of 20 Rand readers before I found one who both understood it and agreed with it... not quite on par with Joyce for accessibility, but definitely approaching it.
Too bad you're already modded +5, or I'd give you more. Oops, now I can't... I've replied to the thread. Excellent perspective though. Not one of those three seem interested in what they can do to make things better and each points fingers at both of the others. It is possible that some would argue the infrastructure providers (ISPs, etc.) should be in your list and play more of a role, but I disagree... the world outside your firewalls should always be regarded as completely void of safety and there should be no reliance on anyone further down the wire to keep you secure. Further, no one upstream of you should be filtering what you get/send or what of you others can see. That's your job. If it's too much for an individual/corporation to handle, they either need to hire a full-time who can handle it, or else outsource some kind of limited, managed network service. If they can't see clear to do one of those, they don't really need to be connected to the network too bad, now, do they?
I can't wait till I'm tring to solve a routing problem and all my Google Groups searches return posts from alt.microsoft.public.ras-routing or alt.microsoft.public.isaserver.
alt.my.head.hurts.
You're not far off base there, but even with the small subset of CSS2+ that is supported, you can do much more with less code than the diverging DHTML methodologies so rampant before XHTML started getting some uptake. The positive thing is that you can build some very, very sharp looking stuff for the truly compliant browsers and still have it look OK in IE. Before that was possible, the tendency of a large number of designers was to code for buggy-as-hell but market dominating IE and let compliant browsers degrade, and that ends up looking like shit in the better browsers. At least this way, designers can shoot for the standard and let IE take the rap for being sub-par.
But yeah, I'm with you... wouldn't it be great if the overwhelmingly predominant browser out there conformed to the standards that much less funded efforts have little problem adhereing to pretty well? I can't believe there is a technological barrier to IE conforming. It has to be purely out of spite.
Your swipe was at XML integration into document formats as a whole and web documents in particular (or at least it seemed that way to me) as relates to presentation, or were we talking about something else?
XHTML realizes to the fullest extent yet the power of CSS, and is slowly forcing a new level of standards compliance on what was before (and still is to a great degree) a very fractured browser base.
Then again, I'm not surprised that someone who prefers Office97 to Office 2000, XP or 2003 (or oOo for that matter) has no use for XML structure in daily tasks.
If XML is so worthless in presentation documents, why is just about every layout app (not just BS formatting toys like Word) including Illustrator, ImageReady, Acrobat, Freehand, Fireworks, Flash etc. (Quark is notably lagging, as usual) moving to XML for the internal structure that organizes the document content? Is it just a bandwagon that everybody is on because their collective arch-rival MS hyped it and "bet the farm" (ummm... yeah... that'd be great) on it? IDFTS!
Then you don't know how to configure windows. Not only do I browse with IE, my wife and son (9) do so on my workstation as well. My son definitely visits a place or two where adware is pushed and I never have an adware problem. I run AdAware and SpyBot and HijackThis occasionally to verify that things are clean. Every now and then they might turn up something minor (tracking cookies, etc.), but it's pretty rare.
Note... I'm not bashing Moz, Opera etc. As far as I can tell, they're fine browsers. I especially like Moz because CSS2/XHTML behaves the way you expect it to in Moz, which is something I surely can't say for IE.
But the point is, you *can* configure IE even without using third-party monitors and blockers in such a way that this crap doesn't get on your PC. Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean it can't be done..
Also, don't think you're immune just because you don't browse with IE. More adware gets installed by piggybacking on cheap shareware/freeware than just about any other way. So just because you don't use IE doesn't mean you're clean. Riddle me this... If you've never run Adaware/SpyBot/HJT, how do you *know* you don't need some cleanup?. If you are clean, that's fantastic, but reasoning that you don't need it without checking it out is kinda PHB-like.
Are You high? Charter's customers going to dialup would hardly be a bad thing. Maybe we'd finally see the end of "default.ida..../n/n/n/n" ad infinitum in our logs.
Right, they made a smart purchase of a company destined to be allowed by the gov't to run a monopoly for years.
<sarcasm>Their ties up the ladder did nothing to perpetuate this.</sarcasm>
For those years they pump/dump all they can. Then when they've gotten all they need, they work out a sweetheart sale to the largest SSL cert provider that gives *them* the largest stake in *that* comapny, now the parent of the registrar! So my original assertion stands that they have heavy influence in name resolution, SSL and identity verification and now the voting system. And the membership of the ex-black-ops is pretty well known. Just google SAIC and CIA. But, you probably already know this. You, for one, welcome our new goon overlords.
I'll admit I was overly broad with the word "owns". SAIC no longer owns NetSol outright [they did for five years] and they are only the largest shareholder in VeriSign. The article I mentioned before (I alluded but it eluded) was in Red Herring. From the article (June 2000 issue):
You have to know with whom you're dealing here. NetSol/VeriSign are now owned by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and have been for a few years now. Acronym sound tongue-in-cheek? It should. It's a bunch of ex-Black-ops guys who came out of long years of service with connections very, very high up the ladder and having been privvy to a lot of research info that usually only the likes of DARPA has seen. They have got to be, hands-down the most classified contractor ever. A few years back, just after FTC allowed the NetSol/VeriSign merger (hmm...), SAIC gobbled up both. About the same time, Carnivore/Eschelon was all the hype.
A whole lot of the combat techno you're seeing is courtesy of SAIC, but their forte is amalgamating disparate data sets and mining them for common threads (and some of the tech they use to do it is quite good, actually). Poindexter worships the ground they walk on and their claim is that several of the high-profile captures since the WTC bombing has been a result of their mining tech. I believe I even saw an article on C|Net about it but it escapes my search now (maybe if SAIC owned that media outlet as well I'd find it easier).
So yeah, I'm just super excited to have these guys with proven goon records and cloak-and-dagger managing both my DNS registration and my SSL communications, as well as making sure my vote got counted correctly. Stellar. Bye-bye freedom, hullo Big Bro...
These "internet-accessible machines owned by the bank ... hosted in offsite colo facilities that have no direct connection to [y]our network" -- do they have sensitive/valuable data on them thet they publish to the world? If so, all you're saying is your megabucks employer trusts the colo's sysadmin more than he does you when it comes to securing his sensitive data.
Colo's have DMZs and internal nets too, y'know. I have heard the argument far too many times: "I know how to secure it... we'll host it totally offsite and pay someone else to handle it!" While that may in fact mitigate the threat to your internal servers, very little is available to you regarding access to the servers in question.
I personally like having all my servers located where I can physically touch them (and disconnect their cables physically if need be). Also, my IDSes and monitors get more of a sense of the rise and fall in the "noise floor" when they're all at home. Hearing this chatter is especially useful when the bottom's about to fall out on the next mega-worm, or even sooner when the real threats are probing for the exploits they have now and you don't get a patch for till two weeks hence.
Check out FortiNet. They do seven layers, NIDS and antivirus all in ASIC (also BSD/OS based, I think). Very f'n cool.
Some also do real-time content-scanning at the host end of the tunnel.
Funny, I don't see it supporting their claim at all. The only input path to the codebase according to the chart came from 4.4BSD Lite.
Right on, Bro. If you're going to point out the real downside to monoculture, do that instead of bashing such an easy target as MS installations. Grand-parent had a good point that folks who know what they're doing can stem the evil tide a bit with good implementation & policy. The only caveat to that is alot of them get to the level of knowing what's what by getting burned enough times ;!{
Only took two days toi make it to slashdot? You guys are going soft.
That has to be the longest non-rant, well-thought, properly spelled and punctuated and basically most lucid thing I've heard on the subject yet.
The "big advances" SCO is advertising for future releases all hinge on at least one GPL component. If they are declaring the GPL invalid, then they are using that component without permission.
Well, Joey, we agree on one thing... we both know one admin who will know better next time (we hope) or one position that has a new chance to be filled by someone worthy of pay grade above that of fry-cook. These companies kill me... hiring not only unschooled slobs but lazy ones as well to oversee their most critical infrastructure. It's amazing. It's one thing to run critical services on Windows; it's another to have an unattentive dolt manage them.
The bad part about it is that these guys bring down the pay grade for more skilled admins both in the Windows and *NIX world.